European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

NPR: GM vs. Toyota: By the Numbers

The pay offered by Toyota is irrelevant as they have far lower costs in terms of health benefits. This is why it's useless to talk about saving GM/Chrysler without having national health insurance on the table.

Number of Plants in North America
Source: GM & Toyota
GM: 77, all unionized. Plans to close 12 facilities by 2008 (see press release).
Toyota: 12, three unionized in Long Beach, Calif., Fremont, Calif., and Tijuana, Mexico.

Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker
Source: GM & Toyota
GM: $73.73
Toyota: $48

Japanese companies have sucky labour standards, but at least they do have fairly good environmental governance. US carmakers suck at both.

I don't see that it's true that the manufacturing power of GM is somehow needed for military reasons. Any war big enough to require the complete conversion of the GM factories to military production is a war in which very little of humanity is left after a very short time (and the GM factories are reduced to smoldering radioactive waste at any rate).

I honestly don't get what you're saying about Ford. Why would they be the least prepared? And what you're saying about GM and Chrysler's market valuation not being determined by economic contingencies is off in some other reality than the one we live in. Yes, Republicans and a lot of New Dems want to kill the unions. Doesn't determine the fact that the companies are making huge losses because they have sucky cars they're selling for too little money.

GM and Chrysler (Ford, too) are simply in a very poor position right now. I recommend reading the report 'Sustainable Value in Automobile Manufacturing'. There is simply no area in which these companies are efficient, are not trailing their competitors by a significant margin.

These industries are dying due to a number of factors. If these factors are not alleviated, you can pump money in endlessly. But it might be a better idea to improve the economies of the rust belt states by spending that money on something else. As in, provide a comprehensive social reinvestment programme to diversify the economies. It's what the Dutch government did when it closed down the (state-run) coal mining industry in Limburg. Worked out splendidly.

I think that GM's company structure lends itself poorly to global competition. If the US govt. takes over, it should at least sell all foreign factories and brands and move to transform the US business to a 1 or 2 brand model.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 03:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, those numbers are 3 years old, and do not reflect the change in labor unit cost that occurred when the UAW allowed "legacy costs" (retiree healthcare) to be transferred to a VEBA. The 2007 UAW contract cut that hourly rate that you mention in half.

After the 2007 GM-UAW contract, hourly labor costs (wage+ benefits) are now lower at GM plants than at most Toyota plants. And hourly labor costs are rising at Toyota as American employees begin to retire.

I'm sorry to say this, but you're not very well informed on this issue, and you've drunk the corporate kool-aid.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 04:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're talking nonsense. The current costs for GM are still as high as ever. Their average labour costs were $73 The lower cost figure only goes for new workers. They still have the legacy cost. So when GM has rolled over its workforce, its product line, and its useless leased vehicle park, there might be the prospect of the company maybe turning a profit again.

You might as well start from scratch.

And when General Motors can only retain its profitability by paying its workers decidedly less, and moving part of their retirement packages to 401(k)s which can be wiped out in any market crisis - what's the point?

ManfromMiddletown:

I'm sorry to say this, but you're not very well informed on this issue, and you've drunk the corporate kool-aid.

Strange times when what's good for General Motors equals what's good for the country is no longer a form of corporate kool-aid.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 08:48:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's reprise this. Say, saving GM and Chrysler, plus suppliers, would mean a government takeover coupled to an investment of $200 billion. As a ballpark figure.

Would you rather spend that amount of time, planning and money on an industry that is highly labour-extensive, produces large negative externalities and has a questionable future, or would you spend it on something else?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only reasons for saving GM and Chrysler are symbolic and political. Those aren't necessarily bad reasons, but nationalisation should mean a change of management culture towards green goals rather than propping up dinosaur-age conspicuous consumption.

As green proponents in charge of crush-and-swap schemes, or working in a combined way with new emissions and energy efficiency standards, GM, Chrysler and Ford could become a useful asset rather than another drain on resources.

In terms of the wider economy, they're collateral damage. A bolder move would be to nationalise big oil. They've worked so hard to own the government, the government should repay the favour. When Exxon's profits are $40bn, managed at the same time that pump prices have been the highest in living memory, there's plenty of room there for more efficient government management of the energy economy with some aggressive intervention.

Nationalising big oil would also remove one of the biggest funding and lobbying blocks against sane transport and energy policies.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 09:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Political Economy of Nationalisation... (none / 0)

If you nationalise industries you do not necessarily lessen their lobbying power.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Political Economy of Nationalisation... (none / 0)

No, but it becomes much easier to push them in a useful direction.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 10:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Political Economy of Nationalisation... (none / 1)

If you keep them nationalised, they become harder to change, more ossified, I think. It's often easier to provide market regulation than to change nationalised industries. But if you nationalise the industries in order to turn them around and have a clear exit strategy, it is easier.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nationalizing Big Oil (none / 0)

Do you think that US National Oil Co would have an easier time getting access to oil fields in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Angola or Bolivia than ExxonMobil?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 12:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And then there were (4.00 / 2)

I don't want to see the loss of US automobile manufacturing capability. It is too much of what little manufacturing remains in the US and allowing GM and Chrysler to be dissolved would be a disaster. Elimination of the social parasites from the medical care system is key. Chief amongst them are pharma and the insurance industry.

I have long despaired of the lack of vision of automotive executives. But better national policy would help steer them in the right direction. They have to figure out that they must build what the country needs, not what they want to sell.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 09:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And then there were (4.00 / 2)

Mumble, mumble, "tying two sinking boats together does not make them float," mumble.

by asdf on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm cool with it, so long as all of the cars are painted with red ink.

We've got bigger problems to deal with. Let'em sink. Buh-bye.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See my response to nanne.

We've got bigger problems to deal with.

Really, I'm talking about economic apocalypse, what trumps that, Drew?

Remember, Drew what Pastor Niemoller said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

There is a plan afoot to do to UAW workers at the Big Three what was done at Delphi: use the principle of sacrifice in order to survive as a firm to demand that workers wages be cut in half.

The new second tier rate at GM is $14.50, less than half the rate negotiated for line workers. At Delphi, the implementation of a second tier wage led in time to the reduction of all wages to the second tier rate. If repeated across the auto sector, this would bring a massive redistribution of income from workers to management.

And it would unleash a disastrous cycle of demand destruction because if auto workers can no longer afford to buy goods and services, workers employed in providing those services lose their jobs. And so it goes on until demand is totally destroyed in a deflationary spiral.

The only way out is reflationary policies, i.e. spending a massive amount of cash. During the 1930s the only activity that could marshal that kind of massive consumption was war.......

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um...

Remember, Drew what Pastor Niemoller said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

GM is a very bad company, MfM, but to suggest that allowing it to fail would be in any way like allowing the atrocities of Nazi Germany is insane.

Nobody's speaking for me. I'm a bureaucrat. They've been slashing government workers' wages through inflation for years, in addition to refusing to comply with the laws passed in the early-1990s requiring the federal government to bring its employees to par with the private sector.

I don't begrudge the UAW taking a bigger chunk of the pie from the auto companies, but the Nazi reference is especially offensive given that $14.50 is a lot of money to people in my region of the country. Most of my relatives in Georgia who worked in manufacturing have never, and will never, earn that wage. They didn't earn near that when the factory was open. And they damned sure don't make anything near it now.

And you want to pretend this is something akin to Hitler?

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also,

Really, I'm talking about economic apocalypse, what trumps that, Drew?

That's perhaps an economic apocalypse for you up there. But the idea that the end of GM would cause anywhere near the damage to the nation as a whole that a collapse in the banking system would cause is moronic.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's perhaps an economic apocalypse for you up there. But the idea that the end of GM would cause anywhere near the damage to the nation as a whole that a collapse in the banking system would cause is moronic.

Let's talk about this.

I think that we can both agree that the origins of the current credit crisis lie in the large number of mortgages in default.

The presumption is that the reason that mortgages are in default is because there was a housing bubble, and that people bought more than they could afford thinking that the house price would go up allowing them to flip it. (i.e. speculation)

Ok, then let's look at the top 20 cities for foreclosures, which I've matched here with housing price appreciation.

The housing bubble is only part of the story here, the other half of the default crisis has nothing to do with housing prices in California and Florida. It has to due with mortgage default brought on because people are no longer able to earn what they once did.

So actually, the economic hardship in the "Rust Belt" states has had a very real impact on the economy of the rest of the country. If GM collapses then you're going to see foreclosure rates in cities where plants are located skyrocket. Same thing is watches are slashed in half. Just because you don't feel the pain immediately, doesn't mean that this all won't have an impact on the rest of the country.

Housing affects credit markets, but else than that the effect is fairly localized. The collapse of GM would unleash deflationary pressures in a number of other sectors that would have a far larger effect on the rest of the country.

A large part of this credit crisis does have to do with economic hardship resulting from deindustrialization in the Midwest. And what's happened so far would pale in comparison to what the collapse of GM and the other auto companies would do.

You would see the effects even in Washington.

<blockte

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 09:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh SHIT! (none / 1)

It's all MY fault.

5 years ago I lived in Stockton, CA (no.2) and now I live in Sacramento (no.5). The housing bubble is following me around. If I could just get off this planet, things would settle down.

Any suggestions?

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, we're talking about two hypothetical scenarios here: (1) the collapse of GM and (2) the collapse of the American (and/or global) banking system.

If you're trying to get me to agree that economic collapse in the Rust Belt has an impact on the real economy, my answer is, of course, "No shit." But your argument to me was that the collapse of GM would constitute economic apocalypse, and my point was that the collapse of GM would pale in comparison to the collapse of the nation's banking system.

The latter would make GM's demise look like the Great Keynesian Boom by comparison. We'd be going from millions struggling to tens of millions going without pay, facing foreclosure, eviction, bankruptcy, and a nearly-unstoppable downward spiral. Probably political instability as well, and not of a variety you'd like.

And it's not as though there aren't other car companies. Rebuilding the auto industry is a lot easier when there's already another set of companies around to build on. Rebuilding the banking industry is a more complex, much more expensive, and more immediately devastating (from a nationwide perspective) situation. GM isn't likely to bring down the banking system, but the banking system could damned sure bring down GM.

My biggest beef with Detroit is that they produce shitty cars and then demand money from the rest of us to continue building shitty cars. The best GM seems to be able to come up with is a $40,000 sports car with a standard-issue electric battery that wouldn't suffice for most people where I live even if we had that obscene amount of money to blow on a car. Ford made the effort by producing a hybrid SUV. Great, so now they're only several years behind their competitors.

I don't drive an American car and am not likely to ever do so as long as the alternatives continue to exist. They're lousy cars. You're essentially advocating that I, and those like me, give our money to the American automakers after we've already voted with our feet.

Now from a practical perspective, I can agree that it's probably better to find some solution that allows the automakers to continue on, at least for now, so that we're not throwing more gasoline on an already-out of control fire. There are certain areas where I'd be okay with working with them -- if (say) we had a clear avenue to get our money back, if we were allowed to dictate what they could and could not build, etc.

I'd also prefer we allow the Europeans to enter the market in a bigger way.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 11:22:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd like to support MfM (none / 1)

GM's woes are regularly blamed on either unions (insane pay packages) or management (bad car line-up). But there are also endogenous factors that have macro-economic relevance, in the case of the auto sector: the way healthcare and pensions are set up comes to mind, but the dominance of financial analysts and their focus on next quarter figures matters too, in terms of what the big 3 invested in.

MfM is right to note that automobile manufacturing is macroeconomically significant, that macro policies have had a disproportionate impact on it because of the way it was set up (and the fact that it was a mature industry already before the Reagan/financial revolution) and that it is worth finding solutions for it that reduce the pain for the many people that are still in it and have no prospects out of it, even if it's not the best theoretical bang for a buck in overall terms.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait, it's okay to rescue financial corporations but not industrial corporations?

I mean, when they go bankrupt nationalise them and preserve the jobs.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You very well know the systemic difference between automotive and financial corporations. When we're through with this crisis the time has come to make sure there are practically no too-big-to-fail financial companies, and those that still remain will have to be regulated in such a way that they will do everything imaginable to avoid having to accept capital injections from the state.

This said, I'm not in opposition to certain kinds of industrial policy, like when Sarko saved Alstom, or when we saved our automotive industry over here by promising Ford/GM large investments in infrastructure in the region where their factories are located.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 03:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not at all. We've dumped a lot of money into deals we had no business in. Ensuring a functioning banking system is more important than trying to prop up the long-dying American automakers. If GM goes, a lot of people will likely get laid off (or sucked up by the Japanese at lower wages). If the banking system collapses, tens of millions are thrown out of work, millions of companies won't make payroll, etc. Completely different levels of destruction.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tying two sick dogs together does not ... (none / 1)

... make one healthy cat.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tying two sick dogs together does not ... (none / 0)

No, that's why the key is government conservatorship.

Right now, there's speculation that GM is going to be allowed access to funds through the Fed discount window through the pretty flimsy story that its GMAC that's taking out the loans.

There has to be retooling, and the only way that can happen is if the companies are able to create long term value while taking short term losses.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 09:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tying two sick dogs together does not ... (none / 0)

How does that story hold together if GM swaps GMAC for Chrysler?

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 10:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tying two sick dogs together does not ... (none / 0)

I would like to see the companies nationalized.

Even if there GM swaps the 49% stake it holds in GMAC for Chrysler, there is still a lot of good that can come from it.

Both companies can't cut floor staff. They can cut office staff, and they have. They can merge R&D, and trade access to technology.

The gains from this aren't huge, but they just might be enough to allow the company to break a small profit. Going into the black would allow the companies to stem a lot of the pressure coming from the stock market, and would change the narrative on the companies.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

seemed somehow fitting (4.00 / 10)

Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST

Re: seemed somehow fitting (none / 0)

Thank You, ceebs.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seemed somehow fitting (none / 0)

Yup. that'll do me

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 03:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saturday Open Thread (4.00 / 4)

Former Finnish president and Nobel laureate Martti Ahtisaari on NATO:

Ahtisaari vill ha Finland i Nato		Ahtisaari wants Finland in NATO
Det skulle löna sig för Finland att gå med i Nato. Det anser fredspristagaren, president Martti Ahtisaari.		It would pay off for Finland to join NATO. This according to Nobel peace prize laureate, President Martti Ahtisaari.
Han har också tidigare talat för ett Natomedlemskap.		He has previously come out for Finnish NATO membership.
- Ur fredsbevararsynpunkt når man de bästa resultaten via Nato. Jag tror att Finland måste vara med.		- Out of a peace-keeping point of view, you reach the best results via NATO. I believe Finland must be a member.
Enligt Ahtisaari vore ett finländskt medlemskap inte riktat mot Ryssland.		According to Ahtisaari, Finnish membership would not be directed at Russia.

It would seem Ahtisaari neglected to consider that the entire damn organisation is directed at Russia, and in that capacity seems to be quite apt at provoking conflicts rather than preventing them.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST

NATO is, have always been, and will always be a defence organisation. Hence it is not directed at anyone. If it was directed at Russia, NATO members would be doing everything to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but it is quite apparent that is only a US neocon plan, while the important NATO members (read Germany) are doing everyhting in their power to stop that.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 01:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 1)

Which would make NATO at best an inapt and inept organisation bogged down by disagreements among its members or at worst an instrument of the neocons to further spread their insane agenda. Either way, not an organisation well suited for peace-keeping.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The neocons are going down. No one trust them anymore, not after their repeated failures.

I must say NATO has been extremely good at peace keeping. It kept the Russians from invading all through the cold war, and it will keep that peace in the future too.

These colonial police actions which are often labeled peace keeping is nothing for NATO to deal with though - that was just to give the organisation a raison d'être until the Russians got back on their feet.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 03:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But just about everyone with any sort of influence in American foreign policy are in agreement with the neocon faction on the basic foundation for how the US is to operate in relation to the rest of the world; if the international community disagree with a particular American stance, the US will simply bypass the international community, even if it involves military operations. Which would still leave NATO as described.

Aha, so it was directed at Russia after all! Good news for the once and future Communist fighters that they'll have a real enemy again, I suppose. Too bad that proxy war in Georgia didn't work out too well.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 03:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are mixing apples and oranges.

Worrying about Russian is not being a neocon, it's just taking a sober look at the last century and seeing Europe can be a very nasty place.

if the international community disagree with a particular American stance, the US will simply bypass the international community, even if it involves military operations.

This is not neoconservatism, it's plain ole realpolitik. Using your definition Russia, China and lots of other countries would also be neoconservative. They aren't.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 04:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good to see you back, Nordic!

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 1)

seconded

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why, thank you guys! Though I never went away; been a bit too busy with work lately, is all...

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saturday Open Thread (4.00 / 7)

Hi everybody. I hope you're all having a lovely weekend. I think my 'rents might be in Paris. Are they in Paris yet, Jerome?

I have some inner-ear thing, awful, I can't speak without the sensation that I'm in a cave. I can hear my voice in my head, but I can't hear it projecting, so I think I might be overcompensating and yelling at people on accident and the whole situation is making me insane.

Oh, what I wanted to tell you. Since this site is like Doom P0rn Central, you might like this: The other day I woke up to a story about banks becoming reserves not just for cash, but for water. I'm not making it up.

Am I the only one who feels (re:the economy) the same sensation you get when you go on a rollercoaster ride, you're standing in line, anticipating it, and then the little compartment pulls up, and you are like, here we go, and then they lock you into you seats with a "Slam!". That part. The "Slam!" part. Am I the only one who kinda feels like that right now?

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 01:46:20 PM EST

Re: Saturday Open Thread (4.00 / 3)

Also, have they finally succeeded in kicking Russia out of the G8? I keep hearing about a meeting of the G7.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was confused about that, too, and checked -- turns out it is a separate institution: this G7 is a separate forum of only finance ministers, not head of states.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's called security ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm jealous of your 'rents.

Hope you feel better.

So the big local news today is everyone's fear (actually it's HOPE) that the credit crisis kills the InBev/Anheuser-Busch deal. Normally I would say that this is just fantasy-world wishful thinking on the part of the locals and that even in a tight credit market these loans would get done. But after the past 2 weeks I hate to be assured about anything.

by Maryb2004 on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 05:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a bad deal is it?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 05:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it's probably a good deal for shareholders.

But a bad deal for the community. Anheuser-Busch is very philanthropic and does a lot for the city. Everyone expects that well to dry up once they are owned by the Belgians. And despite assurances that they'll maintain North American headquarters here - no one really believes them. Or thinks that it will matter in the long run.

So the locals are all excited by the prospect that the financial crisis could "save" AB, as they put it. It's a $58 billion deal. InBev has to borrow $40 billion.

I have a hard time believing that their financing sources will back out even in this economy.

by Maryb2004 on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 06:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry (none / 0)

I had a bust day Thursday, went to Amsterdam Friday, and was invited to a week-end away in the Loire valley, so I have not set foot in Paris in the ast 3 days, unfortunately.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 06:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry (none / 0)

Doesn't sound too unfortunate.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 10:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saturday Open Thread (4.00 / 4)

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 02:08:12 PM EST

Funny, the first version of this I saw had a hispanic woman. But then again the final word on that version probably needed editing. But I dunno why they re-shot it with a white woman.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 05:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They released both versions at the same time ... this is "Side A", the other version is "Side B".

The idea, it seems to me, is that upper middle class and working class families have a lot more in common with each other than they do with each other.

In A Sinking Economy (side b)

From YouTube:

written & directed by Patrick Wilkinson
starring Rosa Esperanza González and Luis Xago Juárez

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 part question for ET citizens (none / 0)

Can we make our own "youtube" videos? Is it technically possible?
If yes on 1., when do we start?
Do other blog/Think Tanks already produce/show their own youtubes?

I look forward to seeing ET members on the screen. Future film stars.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

Greenspan's bubbles

Click through to get explanation of the scales, etc.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM EST

Serious people (4.00 / 6)

When you say "Nobody could have expected.....", you actually mean "I don't know what I'm talking about".

Y'know I think this will need to be engraved on the tombs of most western leaders and "serious people" who've been involved in practically every decision of the last 100 years.

I was watching Simon Scharma's new series on "American futures" and he was talking about the water crisis in the west and the Oklahoma dust bowl. In each of these genuine experts desperately tried to get access to policy makers and explain why what they were doing was wrong. They weren't serious people y'see. Cos serious people have access, they flatter, they tell politicians what they want to hear, they go with hte flow, never bring awkward facts into discussions. They don't contradict, ie they're rude and abrasive.

The bloke who predicted the dust bowl was actually granted a hearing the day the winds actually produced a dust cloud over Washington. He was able to say "this cloud is the topsoil of Oklahoma, it is what I have been warning you about for years" Of course, it was too late by then.

I was reminded in this programme of the people who said how Iraq would go swimmingly, or would turn the corner is 6 months, rose petals. And how anybody who contradicted was frozen out. Nobody would hear them. They were pronounced "not serious". And we hear politicians now going "nobody could have predicted..." and you can't help throwing things at the screen even now shouting "yes, they did, you wouldn't listen to them..."

And now the smartest guys in the room are saying "nobody could have predicted" this financial crisis. And I reach for a bottle of beer and drink deep cos I can no longer bear to listen to this self-serving drivel of self-reinforcing blame avoidance. They didn't know, cos they didn't want to know. They didn't hear cos they never listened.

Because oily lobbyists flatter them with easy promises, surround them, protect them from words that are impolite, from ideas that might challenge.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 04:14:18 PM EST

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dygkw

I watched that too. I highly recommend it to anyone who gets the chance to see it:

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm downloading that as I read this comment.

Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 05:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious people (none / 0)

simon schama is a national treasure...

"I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves." -Harriet Tubman .

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only available in the UK.

Madness takes its toll. Have exact change ready

by ATinNM on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 06:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious people (none / 0)

Connect to Iplayer using a UK based proxy server, in theory that should do it so you should be able to watch.

Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because oily lobbyists flatter them with easy promises, surround them, protect them from words that are impolite, from ideas that might challenge.

Politicians are high maintenance clients for those the lobbyists represent. At least those who possess a conscience require constant stroking to assuage the anxiety produced by constantly being required to vote against the interests of those they nominally represent. This would make a good plot for an HBO series that brings Deadwood up to date.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 10:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious people (none / 0)

Oh yes, I've been meaning to write a diary on this for a while now.

Well said.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was in town yesterday.... (4.00 / 2)

and I suddenly noticed that there's a lot of people wearning Obama stuff. Y'know, this is like... London. in England.

And I got to wondering and then I realised. It's how Americans can be americans abroad and not get hassled about well everything. They don't have to wear Canada flag patches anymore. An Obama t-shirt is get out of jail free card, a great big "I'm one of the good guys buy me a beer" neon sign.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 05:59:59 PM EST

Re: I was in town yesterday.... (none / 1)

A couple of friends were wearing:

constantly during their trip to Paris.

Got a lot of notice. ;-)

Madness takes its toll. Have exact change ready

by ATinNM on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was in town yesterday.... (none / 0)

VERRRRY cool!

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 10:29:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What a relief (none / 0)

I won't have to say "eh" all the time when I travel. I can just wear an Obama button. :)

by Maryb2004 on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 06:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh. Somehow I've never had these problems - I've never once been mistaken for a Republican...

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a relief (4.00 / 3)

how come? is it the lack of swiveling eyeballs? lack of frothing at the mouth? what gives it away? ;-)

Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a relief (4.00 / 2)

I'm not sure! You'll have to ask the meetup people...

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the shoes.

by Maryb2004 on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh! I'll bet you're right!

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:27:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/11/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-steve-levine-putins-labyrinth/

Of course I'm right. The shoes AND your international sensibility.

by Maryb2004 on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the smile (none / 1)

and the irresistible way she says "bohnjoooor" or "mayrceeeee"

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 12:33:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a relief (none / 0)

I generally didn't have a problem, although a few did assume we were all right-wing lunatics. Had a classmate who, when we first met, kept asking me why Americans believed in Bush.

But, hell, the Brits were more Republican than I was much of the time.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 07:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Putin's Labyrinth (4.00 / 3)

Don't forget to drop by...

I'm hosting.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 06:17:55 PM EST